Submission to: Palmerston North City Council

From: Cycle Aware Palmerston North

Date: 21 April 2003

Re: PNCC Draft Annual Plan 2003-04

Cycle Aware Palmerston North (CAPN) is a cycling advocacy group. The current membership is 35 (some of which are family subscriptions). Our aim is to bring about improvements for cyclists and an increase in numbers cycling. We support other vulnerable road user groups who experience difficulties similar to those experienced by cyclists (e.g. lack of safe and convenient mobility and access) and we support environmentally friendly modes of transport. For several years we have made draft annual plan submissions highlighting the need to promote cycling and provide for cyclists. CAPN is represented on PNCC’s Cycle Advisory Group and is a member of Cycle Advocates’ Network (CAN), the umbrella organization of cycling advocacy groups in New Zealand. We encourage you to find out more about cycling advocacy by visiting the CAN website: www.can.org.nz

Cycle Aware Palmerston North is disappointed to find that, as in the Draft Annual Plans for previous years, there is inadequate funding for Bike Plan implementation.

Cycle Aware Palmerston North has in previous submissions noted the Council’s failure to implement the Bike Plan. Implementation of the Bike Plan is a key element in Council’s efforts to make Palmerston North a safe, healthy place to live. The three broad objectives of the Bike Plan are as follows:

Last year we pointed out that Bike Plan proposes that the quantum of funding dedicated to cycling facilities and promotion in Palmerston North should be somewhere between that adopted by Christchurch and Hamilton City Councils. In early 1998 the figures for the two cities were $780,000 and $125,000 respectively. In the 2000/2001 year the funding for Bike Plan implementation was $150,000. Funding in the 2003/2004 Draft Annual Plan needs to offset the impact of previous years when Bike Plan funding was deferred. Taking into account inflation, the funding should by now be well over $300,000 (i.e. substantially more than the $132,000 in the Draft Annual Plan).

The Bike Plan highlights the importance of City Council leadership and also the importance of developing targets and monitoring performance. It has been disappointing that few meaningful targets have been set. The City Vision contains just one target: "to increase cycling infrastructure". It is disappointing that Palmerston North, with its topographical advantages and demographic characteristics, settled for a target that is so imprecise. All this indicates is that the city is not going to have less or the same cycling infrastructure. We urge this council to show much better leadership in promoting cycling.

To keep faith with the stakeholders (many of them volunteers) who contributed to the development of the Bike Plan, and who continue to assist in promotion of cycling in Palmerston North, adequate resources should be allocated to ensure that the outcomes that were intended by the Bike Plan policies are achieved. Progress on implementation of the Bike Plan needs to be monitored more closely by the Council’s Cycling Advisory Group (CAG). Monitoring and reporting must be carried out in a rigorous manner (i.e. carefully measuring progress over time on key policies and actions and identifying the remaining work to be done and the resources needed for that). In addition, stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences of the policy being implemented should be incorporated into the design of monitoring.

As well as more rigour in target-setting and measurement for Bike Plan implementation, we recommend specific measures relating to cycling to be included in the Council’s own measures of success. For example, on page 71 of the Draft Annual Plan the improvements in the comfort, convenience and popularity of cycling should be measured as part of Council’s performance. Achievement of Bike Plan targets are indeed measures of Council’s success – particularly in terms of its Environment Policy and progress towards the City Vision.

There is no shortage of well-considered infrastructure and educational projects that require resources, and in this submission we identify some high priority projects. The Council needs to move quickly to review the Bike Plan policies and to identify new actions and targets for the coming 5 years. The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) emphasizes the need for the Bike Plan to be implemented. This does not mean re-writing the policies, actions and targets of the Bike Plan. Where these are felt to need review that is something that should be undertaken by a new Bike Plan Update Working Party that should be established very soon to develop the 2003-2008 Bike Plan.

In our submission last year we noted the need for the Council to begin to develop a second stage of the Bike Plan to be implemented over the 5 years beginning July 2003. To date, nothing has been done because Council has decided that a review should not take place until the New Zealand Walking & Cycling Strategy is published. Given that the national strategy is unlikely to be published before December 2003, this means that it may not be until sometime in 2004 that a new Bike Plan is developed and adopted. We consider that this delay is quite unacceptable. Instead, Council should proceed immediately at the start of the 2003/2004 financial year to undertake a review of the Bike Plan. It is possible to review implementation and to review the policies and targets. That much does not have to wait until there is a NZ Walking & Cycling Strategy. Any new set of policies and actions and targets could be developed as a second stage. We do not consider that this stage should be delayed till 2004 as we understand that amendments to Transfund’s Programme and Funding Manual require local authorities, when submitting applications for funding for cycling projects, to

The status of the 1998-2003 Bike Plan policies and actions needs to be clarified, as implementation of that policy document is a key element in the Transportation Management Plan.

We recommend that funding (of approximately $15,000) be provided in PNCC’s 2003/2004 Annual Plan in order to establish a new Bike Plan Review Working Party to undertake a review of the Bike Plan. The monitoring carried out by CAG (which was set up to monitor implementation) should be available to this Bike Plan Review Working Party. However, an independent working party comprising relevant stakeholders should carry out the review rather than a Council sub-committee. The review would also include a review of the current arrangements for monitoring the implementation of the Bike Plan. In a previous submission CAPN highlighted the need for Council to monitor implementation of the Bike Plan and to ensure that there is accountability. For example, the annual report should state clearly the level of funding for Bike Plan implementation and progress in achieving Bike Plan targets.

We would like clear goals for promoting cycling to be a key feature of PNCC’s long-term council community plan, and we look forward to being involved in the process of identifying community outcomes.

OP10 Bike Plan (p69) allocates $10,000 for initiatives to improve the perception of cycling as an easy and accessible transport mode, and to measure cyclists’ perceptions and attitudes and cycle volumes and undertake feasibility studies for future improvements. We are disappointed that so little is available for operational expenditure. In particular we consider that PNCC should be showing leadership in the community by supporting promotional activities such as National Bike Wise Week to the tune of at least $5000 per annum. We encourage PNCC to be a community leader and make a credible funding commitment to National Bike Wise week, which is well-supported by businesses and community groups, as other local authorities do. We appreciate the excellent efforts made by the Cycle Planning Officer despite having no funds allocated for local activities in this nation-wide event.

CP 13 Bike Plan Implementation (p70) allocates $122,000 for capital projects to increase the infrastructure supporting convenient, accessible and safe cycling opportunities. Works to be constructed under this heading include: Green slurry application at three intersections, improving access to school sites, seal widening on Tennent Drive and new cycle lane markings and bike stands. We consider this level of capital expenditure to be woefully inadequate.

We note that the PNCC’s Long Term Financial Strategy allocated $187,000 for bike plan implementation in 2003/4 (see p172 of the 2003/2004 Draft Annual Plan). Clearly, the $122,000 allocated under CP13 (p70) falls well short of that. We would like to see Bike Plan implementation funding increased to at least $187,000. We consider that the funding allocated for the Bike Plan implementation should be increased to well over $300,000, to take into account Bike Plan recommendations in relation to the level of funding, and to begin to allow some ‘catch-up’ for the deferred implementation, particularly in relation to capital programmes.

Before we outline some high priority projects we raise a specific concern about the level of capital expenditure in the Draft Annual Plan and the way in which this does not appear to be consistent with other roading project funding.

We are disappointed that in 2002 PNCC did not apply for Transfund subsidies relating to 2003 cycling infrastructure works. As a result PNCC missed the opportunity to leverage its own spending through utilizing new government funding for cycling projects. We look forward to hearing that this Council has completed the necessary planning and application work in 2003 in time to secure Transfund subsidies for cycling infrastructure in 2004. Had a 44% Transfund subsidy been applied for in 2002 and the Long Term Financial Strategy were adhered to, then $334,000 would have been available in 2003/4 for Bike Plan implementation.

5.1 Principal Cycle Route network

The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) gave priority to the development of the principal cycle route network. To date, CAPN has not received any information about the proposed network other than a map. We consider that there needs to be a 5 year plan for implementing some key sections of the network (e.g. Botanical Road/Park Road on the western side, and Victoria Ave/Centennial Drive/riverbank on the eastern side of the city) which have a large number of cyclists. There needs to be infrastructure that gives high visibility to cyclists and which significantly enhances the safety, convenience and comfort of cyclists. This would include traffic lights with phases for cycles and road sensors responsive to cycles (an intersection where this treatment is needed is the Cook St/Esplanade entrance on Park Road).

We are very concerned about the parts of the network which overlap with the outer ring road. We do not consider that cyclists should or could be kept away from the outer ring road so particular interventions will be needed to ensure cyclists have safe and comfortable passage on the outer ring road.

Cyclists desire direct and rapid routes from their origin to their destination, just the same as motorists. A key component of this is the avoidance of frequent decelerating and accelerating at non-priority intersections. Hence we would like to see cyclists given higher priority at intersections on feeder roads and main arteries. Examples of how to do this can be found in the Bike Plan. Attempts to divert cyclists away from direct and convenient routes will not be useful or popular and are not a constructive use of rates income.

We are very alarmed at the lengthy delays in carrying out remedial work at the Fitzherbert Avenue/Te Awe Awe St and Fitzherbert Avenue/Park Road intersections. This work was to be done in the 2002-03 financial year, following the remedial work undertaken at Fitzherbert Avenue/College St. However, the work has not been done and is not funded in this year’s DAP. The work needs to be completed as a matter of urgency. It is most unsatisfactory that there is such inconsistent treatment at the three intersections. As part of the remedial work, there needs to be proper cycle lane marking (with the current very short length of marked cycle lane on Te Awe Awe Street extended well back from the intersection. At present there are lengthy queues of vehicles there in the morning and cyclists are often blocked from reaching the marked cycle lane. Yet this is part of the cycle route network. As well as this extension of the cycle lane as part of the remedial work we would again highlight the need for advance stop boxes at intersections that are widely used both in New Zealand (for example, Hamilton) and internationally as we have pointed out in previous Draft Annual Plan submissions.

Works to improve the safety of cyclists at the three intersections mentioned above would not have been necessary if cycling groups had been adequately consulted in the planning phase before the recent upgrades were carried out. Because the infrastructure improvement now required is remedial we do not consider it appropriate to fund the improvements out of bike plan implementation funds.

This facility has proved to be very popular. The path needs to be extended further west along the riverbank. In addition, access to the riverbank for cyclists –near Dittmer Drive and at Ruahine bend and other points where new barriers have been installed – needs to be opened up. The turnstile at the Hokowhitu Lagoon bridge needs to removed at the earliest opportunity and plans made to replace the existing bridge with a bridge that is wide enough for a two directional cyclists and pedestrians.

We support concerns recently expressed about the dangers for cyclists as a result of the lack of shoulder on this road and the volume and speed of traffic. We note that Transit NZ has commented that there is no significant growth in vehicle numbers but in fact this does not include 2003 counts following the change of traffic flow introduced by Massey University which we are told has increased the number of vehicles using the Albany Drive exit onto Old West Road.

We encourage an innovative and forward-looking response to the dangers that have been highlighted. Ideally, a cycle path needs to be constructed if an adequate shoulder is not feasible. In the meantime, urgent consideration should be given to (1) making the section of Old West Road from Summerhill Drive to Turitea School a 70km/hour area, (2) the use of yellow no-passing lines to highlight the narrow carriageway and lack of visibility, and (3) the installation of signs indicating the presence of cyclists.

We support provision for feasibility studies and other project work for these two proposed cycle ways. We recommend funding of $5000 for each project to allow preliminary data gathering and informal consultation with stakeholders.

CAPN notes that the DAP is seeking a mandate from citizens for further work on the City Heart concept. We asked for a meeting with the City heart project group so that we might obtain further information, with a view to making some comments on the concept in our DAP submission. At the stage when we met the officers (3 April) no information was available on what will be provided for cyclists as part of the planned CBD revitalization, the four grand avenues, the inner ring road and the city entrances. We ask that increased safety, convenience and comfort of cyclists be an objective of the City Heart project and that this objective be given appropriate priority. We note that priority is being given to pedestrians but we also consider that priority should be given to cyclists over cars, based on recognition of the benefits of both walking and cycling as healthy, cheap and environmentally-friendly modes of transport.

We are disappointed that so little information is currently available about proposed provision for cyclists because it is clear to us that there are costings and consideration given to facilities for motorists, buses and pedestrians. Why are cyclists not included? We have emphasized that any major project like this should be designed to accommodate a growing number of cyclists in the city, as well as increased public transport patronage.

We have concerns about the proposals for the four grand avenues and the ring road because of the continuing problems for cyclists on the existing dual carriageway on the ring road and on Fitzherbert Ave. On Fitzherbert Ave, where there is an on-road cycle lane and where there has been some attention given to problems for straight-through cyclists and left-turning motorists at one intersection (Fitzherbert Ave/College St) there is still inadequate provision for cyclists. This needs to be addressed before there is more four-laning in the city. When remedial work is undertaken at the other intersections on Fitzherbert Ave there needs to be appropriate provision for northbound right turning cyclists.

CAPN contributed a lot of advice to officers involved in the Square Redevelopment Project in 2001. We want assurances that proper consideration has been given to our suggestions at that time for the CBD, and also to the comments about the CBD in our previous Draft Annual Plan submissions. We consider that basic cycling infrastructure should be accorded greater priority than city beautification. Without suitable infrastructure, cyclists’ safety is at risk. The safety of people in the Square has been highlighted as a key goal for the City Heart Project. We want assurance s that the City Heart project will address cyclist safety.

We are concerned that the nearly $0.5 million for CP7 Ferguson St Widening CBD Ring Road does not appear to provide any benefits for cyclists and is likely to exacerbate the difficulties already experienced by cyclists on other parts of the CBD ring road and elsewhere in the city where there are dual carriageways. This and other four-laning must include cycle lanes. The existence of a principal cycle route network does not mean that cyclist safety of these arterials can be neglected. Any such major road work, as well as other aspects of the City Heart project which impact on cyclists, such as traffic calming, should be discussed with the Cycle Advisory Group and are required by the Bike Plan to have sign-off from the Cycle Planning officer. We note that traffic calming is being promoted for the CBD yet recent traffic calming (e.g. the new humps at Terrace End) has been designed with no regard to the comfort and safety of cyclists.

We look forward to having adequate opportunities to have input into council policies that impact on cyclists. These include the Maintenance contract, the Roading and Traffic Asset Management Plan, and any changes to the Transportation Management Plan. We would like to be able to contribute to monitoring, design and reviews, as often the standard of service that cyclists experience and the standard of infrastructure is detailed in these documents.

In particular, we would like to be involved in the development of measures of success that are appropriate for ensuring better performance in relation to provision of cycling infrastructure. The measures of success for the Roading and Parking Output in the Draft Annual Plan (p71) are not adequate.

Finally, we would like to be consulted about the current development of Strategic Plan KPIs in relation to three key outcomes (A Liveable Urban Environment, A Well-Managed Physical Environment, An Active Community) to ensure that there is proper recognition of the benefits of cycling and consistency with the Bike Plan.

We seek a much stronger advocacy by PNCC of the development of public transport services in the city. It is recognised throughout the world that reducing the volume and speed of vehicle traffic on suburban roads improves the quality of life for residents and boosts the well-being of travelers. We consider cycling and public transport to be complementary and synergistic in this respect, and seek the promotion of (and adequate provision for) both.

Recent developments in central government policy (in particular, the New Zealand Transport Strategy) have already recognised the long-term and present importance of cycling as a convenient, healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transport. Other local governments have taken this to heart and made cycling a priority, with very positive results. We consider that the Palmerston North City Council has been slow to adopt the spirit of these policies to date.

We think Palmerston North should aspire to be a world leader in provision for cycling. Given that the conditions are highly conducive to cycling and there is a large population of people who would cycle if given a little encouragement, we see this as an opportunity for the council to give true meaning to the slogan ‘Young Heart, Easy Living’.

Given the new funding for cycling and walking and the new directions in transport policy as set out in the New Zealand Transport Strategy, it is timely for PNCC to be visionary and develop facilities and infrastructure that represent best practice in terms of provision for, and encouragement of, cycling.

With the continued deferral of Bike Plan implementation funding, and failure to achieve the Bike Plan targets, Palmerston North may be left behind as other local authorities recognise the importance of cycling as a convenient, healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transport, and take significant steps towards encouraging cycling.

We thank Council for the opportunity to make a submission and we would like to have written feedback on the specific points raised in our submission. We wish to publicly acknowledge the excellent work done by Aaron Phillips, the Cycle Planning Officer.